Go ahead, move to Canada.

Here we see a shortcoming of the Canadian healthcare system. Because of the scope and accessibility of Canadian healthcare, the shortcomings appear in the level of care offered. The equipment and personnel needed to take of this baby did not exist in Canada. The author writes that, " this doesn't mean that the American system is better, after all, at least the couple and their baby are guaranteed care up here, thanks to our public system." Umm, is he ignoring the part where the "guaranteed care" didn't have the infrastructure needed? Ponder this analogy: you own a car, but have little money for upkeep and maintenance. Option 1: Top notch maintenance for your car is provided, but it's expensive, possibly even to the point where you'll have to get a cheaper car or live with some things unrepaired. Option 2: Everything is covered for free, but beyond oil changes and maybe some minor body work, the expertise of equipment required does not exist. Both obviously have their shortcomings, but I'd rather take my chances with option 1, rather than be deluded by the "free and public" promises of the second.